the big bang

[cubinno1]

PLEASE EXPLAIN IF POSSIBLE HOW YOU ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT FROM NOTHING THERE WAS A BIG BANG AND THE UNIVERS WAS BORN.<br />ALL I HAVE HEARD SO FAR ON THIS SUBJECT MAKES NO SENCE EVEN IF THE WORLD OF SCIENCE HAS ACCEPTED IT IT STILL RINGS LIKE RUBBISH TO ME.<br /><br />PLEASE SEND ME A VIABLE EXPLANATION OR ADMIT YOU GUYS DONT KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />regards<br />george ormondy

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...<br /><br />Shouting is not necessary.<br /><br />1) You are here.<br />2) There must have been a mechanism that "got you here."<br />3) One of the mechanisms theorized is the "Big Bang." (It is not the only one theorized but it does seem to be the one which has the least conflict with current data.)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">ALL I HAVE HEARD SO FAR ON THIS SUBJECT MAKES NO SENCE EVEN IF THE WORLD OF SCIENCE HAS ACCEPTED IT IT STILL RINGS LIKE RUBBISH TO ME. </font><br /><br />Perhaps it would be easier if you asked a specific question concerning the Big Bang and note what particular areas you believe are "rubbish." Creating a post which details all of the arguments and supporting evidence which leads to the conclusion of a "Big Bang" is a fairly tall order. Especially considering that it was requested in such a fashion. Be a little more specific and patient and I'm sure you will be answered.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

The Big Bang is an explanation for what we see. It is not the only possible explanation, and not everybody accepts it, but most people accept that it does a better job of explaining what we see than any other explanation.

 

[nacnud]

Please don't shout <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, you'll wake up the neighbours<br /><br />There are three main pieces of evidence for the big bang. All links are from www.wikipedia.org.<br /><ul type="square"><li> The ratio of elements in the universe.<li> The cosmic microwave background radiation.<li> The red shift of galaxies.<br /></li></li></li></ul><br />It is very hard if not impossible to explain these observed features of the universe in any way other than the big bang model. Various other models can accommodate one or two of these observations but none can reliably account simultaneously for all three other than the big bang model.<br /><br /><b>The ratio of elements</b><br /><br />The ratio of elements in the universe is roughly 75% hydrogen 25% Helium with a very small percentage of anything else. This is what is predicted by the big bang nucleosynthesis theory.<br /><br /><b>The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)</b><br /><br />The CMBR is a very uniform radiation that is present at around 3K where ever you look in the universe. In the big bang model the early universe was very hot and dense. So hot and dense it was opaque to photons of light which were constantly interacting with the hot plasma. As the universe expanded it cooled to below 3000K at which point atoms could form and the universe became transparent to light. It is this light that has been massively red shifted due to the expansion of the universe that we see today as the CMBR.<br /><br /><b>The red shift of galaxies.</b><br /><br />This was the first piece of evidence that led to the big bang theory. Edward Hubble first noted that observed galaxies tended to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift</safety_wrapper

 

[mooware]

Who said there was nothing? Perhaps M theory created the universe we all know and love.<br /><br />Turn off your caps lock..... Please..<br />

 

[kelle]

There is 2 possible solutions to "where everything come from" using normal human logic.<br /><br />1. Everything is created out of nothing<br />2. Everything has always existed<br /><br />And of course a combination where some energy/matter has always existed and some have come out of nothing. But both these things are impossible to imagine, unless you can accept that some things just don't make sense when you look at it just as you look at normal things.

 

[bbrock]

I have a problem with the eternal universe idea. The property of thermodynamics called entropy. Entropy basically is the irreversibality of thermal processes. If the universe were infinately old, everything would be frozen solid at close to absolute zero. <br /><br />Einstine worked on the eternal universe idea for over a decade. He called that effort the worse blunder of his life. <br /><br />If that is the case, then it implies that the universe had a beginning. The best estimates from measurements based on the big bang theory is 13.7 billion years ago. Christians argue that God created the universe as simply described in Genesis. I am a Christian and an engineer. I argue that Genesis states what God did, not how he did it. He gave us an intelect and a currosity to try and figure that out for ourselves. Which, perhaps we may never do. <br /><br />Interesting thought about the estimeated age of the univers. That would imply that 14 billion years ago did't exist. It would also imply ( I think ) that 28 billion light years away also does not exist. <br /><br />Bill

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">There is 2 possible solutions to "where everything come from" using normal human logic. <br /><br />1. Everything is created out of nothing <br />2. Everything has always existed <br /><br />And of course a combination where some energy/matter has always existed and some have come out of nothing. But both these things are impossible to imagine, unless you can accept that some things just don't make sense when you look at it just as you look at normal things.</font><br /><br />I have a different solution. Matter can be added into the universe if it is converted from energy. The total of matter and energy in the universe never changes, because everything that exists totals to infinity. Everything, that is all matter, is created out of energy. Energy has always existed in different forms such as matter and anti-matter. Energy is light, fluffy matter, and matter is dense, bounded energy.<br /><br />There is a solution that takes into account the following things:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang<br /><br />Abundance of primordial elements<br />Galactic evolution and quasar distribution<br />Redshift<br /><br />The Cyclical Multiverse Theory benefits from what we know about the items listed above. The Cyclical Multiverse is described as a complex of particles called galaxies which are cycled through the poles of a large mass. This mass is among many masses which are tiny compared to the multiverse they make up. This multiverse is a universe made of galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, quarks. But these atoms, quarks contain an abundance of masses around which many billions of civilizations live.<b></b>

 

[kelle]

<font color="yellow">Matter can be added into the universe if it is converted from energy. The total of matter and energy in the universe never changes, because everything that exists totals to infinity.</font><br /><br />Yep, as Einstein said, matter and energy are the same stuff, so that's my solution #2. Though that something has existed for eternity is not something I can imagine at least. Even though it might be true.

 

[nacnud]

Oh come on you've tried that cyclic multivers thing before, it’s just unsubstantiated speculation. In normal terms the great attractor is a super cluster of galaxies, a quark is a subatomic particle why refer to these new constructs by old names if it is not just to confuse people?

 

[kmarinas86]

I no longer use term "Great Attractor" and I avoid using the word quark in terms of defining a new object. It shows in my new diagram. There is less, if any, technobabble in my new diagram. And I've also cut down on the explanation by reducing it to concepts expressed in terms that are well known and not redefined.<br /><br />The new and old diagrams can be found here.<br />http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16265<br /><br />My bandwidth is limited per day.

 

[kelle]

Okay, let me rephrase myself: MATTER CAN BE CONVERTED TO ENERGY AND ENERGY TO MATTER AFTER THIS FORMULA: E=MC^2, therefore they are "connected" and the total of all energy+matter = everything. Energy and matter are not the same stuff of course, but as it can be converted I decided to name it "the same stuff" to make it more simple, ok? Sorry for my indistinctness.

 

[newtonian]

BBrock - I agree. See my Biblical astronomy threads, especially the one highlighting Genesis 1:1.<br /><br />It is true that some scientists, including Einstein, questioned wherther our universe had a beginning - compare versions of steady state theory.<br />It is also true that Genesis 1:1 does not state how God created the universe. However, a strong hint is given in Isaiah 40:26 which links the existence of stars to God's dynamic energy. Other verses also imply the universe was created by God's energy.<br /><br />Simply: God's energy was converted to other forms of energy and matter and was fine tuned to have the specific ratios, laws and properties which allow stars and life to be created and to continue to exist.<br /><br />This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect (one definition of the Divine Name, Jehovah, is: He causes to be).<br /><br />E=mc^2 is basic to the origin of our universe. This formula did not come from nothing- neither the math nor the laws and properties of our universe came from nothing. <br />The Big Bang model explains some of this, but not all of it. It especially fails to explain the cause of the Big Bang, so to speak. It also fails to explain the origin of some of the specific math, formulas, laws and properties of our universe.<br />

 

[newtonian]

nacnud - excellent post. <br /><br />May I add that the specific ratio of Lithium in our universe is strong evidence for the popular form of the Big Bang model?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Please don't shout <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, you'll wake up the neighbours<br /><br />There are three main pieces of evidence for the big bang. All links are from www.wikipedia.org . <br /><br /><br />The ratio of elements in the universe. <br />The cosmic microwave background radiation. <br />The red shift of galaxies. <br /><br /><br />It is very hard if not impossible to explain these observed features of the universe in any way other than the big bang model. Various other models can accommodate one or two of these observations but none can reliably account simultaneously for all three other than the big bang model.</font><br /><br />Not anymore. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> i guess some can't believe that it only takes a high school education and a few weeks of college to come up with a theory that will reconfigure our view of the universe. Most of the Empirical Evidence that supports the big bang theory will also support and aid the development of the cyclical multiverse theory. It is the Analagous Evidence, the result of our interpretation of the data and laws, which differs.

 

[kmarinas86]

Yahweh is not the universe, nor is Jesus the son of the Universe. The universe doesn't have the Word, nor is the word from the Universe. The extent to which Yahweh Elohim can remotely influence people to do something is limited by how much control he allows through his design of the Human Brain. Jesus is not God, because Jesus is not the Father. Did anyone ever say that we're children of Jesus? Jesus therefore does not equal God. The truth is muddled and eroded from centuries of metaphors. But there is a way the slash away all that rubble and question it. It is some of the world leaders that have a really twisted view of running this place. The Elohim wants us to learn from ourselves, rather than a history of mistakes. The Elohim are not behind it all, rather they are watching us like parents keeping on eye on wild and crazy teens, and some how they are able to do it. But just because they're above watching us, it doesn't mean they're going to let us learn the easy way. Its humans rather than The Elohim, that corrupt religions and the teachings of the Elohim sent through the prophets.

 

[bbrock]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space-time to our knowledge. There was no matter or energy. At least not within our understanding. To our knowledge, there were no laws of physics or science or math. At that singularity, when everything was one, at time date 0.0+ , all things were defined to what we know, or think we know today. To our knowledge there had never been a sub atomic particle, or photon or hydrogen atom. There was no such definition of the speed of light. So how is it possible that some day we may understand this unique first singularity using our known laws of science. <br /><br />Can you imagine, all matter in the universe was released as energy and later condensed to what we know it today. That must have been one hell of an explosion. <br /><br />Bill

 

[cubinno1]

Thank you for your info and the site i will look at.<br />One thing i would like to say is that a old yogic text makes reference to the begining of the universe and this was written some couple of thousand years ago and a small quote is in order...<br />the universe was in a static state ie mass of matter which periodically becames active and opens up and expands as the universe is doing at present and in turn when this process has reached its limit then begins to contract and come together again and in turn becames a mass in a static ,dormant state.<br />This is a process which re occours????<br /><br />intresting!<br />anyway i thought i would relate same to you.<br />regards<br /><br />george

 

[cubinno1]

Thanks for your comments and basically i agree with one certain opinion that the universe could not come into existance from NOTHING and any theory that states that is for me out of the question.<br />regards<br />george

 

[cubinno1]

Thanks item 2 is the one ( everything always existed) in some form or other perhaps in a static state like the yoga book i have read indicates.<br />INTRESTINGLY THIS BOOKS CONTENTS ARE DRAWN FROM WRITINGS SOME 2 THOUSAND YEARS AGO.<br />how did they come to this conclusion so log ago?<br />thats a nother mistery.<br /><br />regards<br /><br />george

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"Thanks item 2 is the one ( everything always existed) in some form or other perhaps in a static state like the yoga book i have read indicates. <br />INTRESTINGLY THIS BOOKS CONTENTS ARE DRAWN FROM WRITINGS SOME 2 THOUSAND YEARS AGO. <br />how did they come to this conclusion so log ago? <br />thats a nother mistery. "</font><br /><br />I was under the impression that a Static State universe was disproved, as well as a "cyclic" universe as described by your yoga book. So, nothing amazing here except maybe a guess.<br /><br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Yup according to the latest mesurements the universe will end in heat death where the universe expands forever untill all the stars go out the black holes evaporate and there is nothing left but a temperature barely above absolute zero.<br /><br />Sound fun <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

 

[mooware]

Looks like the 'ol yoga book is wrong. Hmmm, no mystery there. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[jcdenton]

<font color="yellow">Yup according to the latest mesurements the universe will end in heat death where the universe expands forever untill all the stars go out the black holes evaporate and there is nothing left but a temperature barely above absolute zero.</font><br /><br />Isn't that suppose to happen in 10¹⁵ years? That's a LONG time... I wonder if that'll start a whole new big bang cycle? Hmmm...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">" I wonder if that'll start a whole new big bang cycle"</font><br /><br />I'm no scientist, but I wouldn't think this would be the case. It's like if you put a grain of sugar in your coffee, you watch it disolve and dessipate into nothing. It doesn't come back together and re-organize itself. Well, not that I've observed anyway. <br /><br />